scale qualitative study which only employed interviews. A larger mixed methods approach, comprising different role players, would provide a richer picture and allow for generalisability.
Firstly, the school leader sets academic goals. Weber (1987) states the principals’ main duty is to develop a vibrant academic mission and subsequently bring all stakeholders on board regarding its objectives. The process of defining the school’s mission requires cooperation and reflective thinking by all stakeholders. Ultimately, Weber (1987) asserts that the academic mission of a school is invariably based on the common vision of improving learner achievement outcomes.
The second dimension of organising the instructional programme is closely aligned to the first dimension. In order to achieve the organisational goals, the principal should implement strategies such as allocating the staff, institute learner groupings and organise the curriculum (Weber, 1987). It also involves collaborative planning between the instructional leader, learners and parents. Weber (1987) recommends that principals’ should exhibit certain behaviours to achieve these objectives. These attributes include: communication with the staff and utilising their recommendations, making resources available and creating a cooperative environment. In addition, collaborative planning sessions should be performed with the staff and school principals ought to keep staff informed of all relevant policy changes in education (Weber, 1987).
The third dimension comprises teachers’ supervision and evaluation. According to Weber (1987), this dimension is the foremost duty of any instructional leader. Weber (1987) postulates that it is crucial for instructional leaders to monitor the teaching staff, give constructive advice, and make formative evaluations concerning instructional deficiencies so that it can be improved upon. Therefore, principals should be knowledgeable about the curricular programme and pedagogical practices to be able to be effective. For Weber (1987), successful instructional strategies include: monitoring teachers and learners’ performance; providing feedback to teachers about observations; and encouraging teachers to express their views about observational data. Further, principals should give teachers praise for their achievements and successes, and suggest alternative teaching techniques if required. Additional assistance such as pedagogical resources and training programmes could be offered to teachers to improve their instructional skills (Weber, 1987).
Aligned to the supervision and evaluation of teachers, is the hiring of new teachers. Weber (1987, p.29) contends that “hiring competent people is vital to the health of an instructional programme”. Regardless of the emphasis principals’ place on teacher supervision and
40
professional development, a lot of time and resources can be saved if competent staff is hired in the first place. This is because they are responsible for navigating the instructional programme.
The fourth dimension entails protecting the instructional time and programmes. Cusick’s (1973) seminal study concluded that approximately three hours of a learners’ normal school day was spent on mundane issues. Similarly, teachers used valuable time for taking learners’ attendance, allocating resources, and so on. Hence, much teaching time is lost. In addition, instructional time also suffers when learners exhibit disciplinary problems, truancy and absenteeism (Weber, 1987).
Weber (1987) advocates that in order to increase academic learning time; principals should focus on learners’ school attendance and allocate sufficient time for pedagogy. In terms of improving school attendance, attention should be given to identifying problems regarding learner attendance, eliciting parental support and providing a reward system for good attendance (Weber, 1987). Moreover, the allocated time for instruction has many facets. The principal could hold staff meetings to strategise on problems related to instructional planning and minimise any disruptions to the school curriculum. Additionally, there should be classroom visits to observe teachers and learners, and the streamlining of teachers’ administrative tasks (Weber, 1987).
Weber (1987) opines that the fifth dimension of creating a climate conducive for learning has a huge impact on learning outcomes and the individuals’ self-concept. As such, the professional ethos that the school principal and staff personify, strongly influence learner achievement outcomes (Weber, 1987). Therefore, when the whole staff supports core pedagogical values, then the notion of school improvement becomes a reality. In fact, learners’ attitude towards academic learning is embodied in the schools’ professionals. Thus, the norms that Weber (1987) considers essential to enhance pedagogy are: the amount of time allotted for learning, the volume of schoolwork learners receive and the degree of attentiveness that learners’ display in their work.
Weber (1987) further indicates that instructional leaders should demand high expectations from all stakeholders in order to create a positive learning climate. Strategies that could be utilised to improve the learning climate include: providing adequate instructional time, having sufficient content coverage and teachers willing to assist learners. Likewise, it is crucial to give praise to learners for providing the correct answers, and have an adequate response opportunity factor
41
(Weber, 1987). This aspect specifically refers to the number of times learners are called on to answer challenging questions.
The final dimension is about monitoring achievement and evaluating programmes. This dimension refers to principals who plan, manage and analyse assessment tasks in order to ascertain the efficacy of the instructional programme. Moreover, whole programmes can be reviewed for underlying successes or flaws. However, the effectiveness of the instructional programme is generally measured against learner achievement results. Weber (1987, p.54) poses some critical questions such as, “Are they [learners] reaching the objectives proposed?” and
“Where are they failing and why?” For Weber (1987), if deficiencies in the education system can be identified, then these learning problems can be remedied. Thus, the constant analysis of the curricular programme allows principals to address learners’ requirements through trial and error. In the final analysis, the assessment of learners’ academic performance is one of the most crucial components of the instructional programme (Weber, 1987).
The instructional leadership models (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Weber, 1987) dominate the educational landscape. The similarities between these two models are: defining the school’s mission, and encouraging a favourable learning environment. However, Weber’s (1987) model is most appropriate for this study because it is quite comprehensive and it has further dimensions.
The most important dimension is setting the academic goals, as it potentially involves all other areas of pedagogy and incorporates past experiences when planning for future eventualities. This suggests that the instructional leader does not only theorise, but also uses research and practical innovations. Furthermore, Weber’s (1987) model emphasises the embedded values of a school, such as perpetual improvement and collegiality, which may motivate all stakeholders to improve their teaching and learning practices.
2.3.2 Distributed leadership theory
The notion of distributed leadership has become prominent in the instructional leadership literature (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2008). Hallinger (2009, p.13) notes that any discourse on school leadership should not only take into account the “practices and effects of leadership, but also the sources of leadership”. Hence, the school principal as the only source of leadership can be detrimental to school effectiveness (Southworth, 2002; Leithwood, et al., 2008). In other
42
words, leadership should be dispersed and teachers should take ownership of the process.
Furthermore, Fullan (2009) contends that a solid rationale for distributed school leadership is the concept of sustainable change as the ultimate goal is improved learning outcomes.
Basically, distributed leadership tries to debunk the myth of a ‘hero leader’ because this is considered bad for business as too much revolves around one person. Fullan, Cuttress and Kilcher (2009) maintain that the mark of a good principal is not just their impact on learners’
academic performance, but also a band of future leaders that are empowered. Hence, the ideal is for leadership to be a dispersed and collaborative process involving school principals, deputy principals, HoDs and teachers. Thus, Spillane (2006, p.58) defines distributed leadership as
“both lateral and vertical dimensions of leadership … [and the] co-performance of leadership and the reciprocal interdependencies that shape that leadership practice”.
A distributed leadership perspective comprises many different characteristics. It recognises that there are multiple leaders and not just one individual leader (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2010). Harris (2010) mentions that leadership activities are widely shared within and between organisations, and all individuals’ work is acknowledged (Fullan, 2009). A distributed model focuses on the interactions rather than the actions of leaders, in both formal and informal leadership roles. It is primarily concerned with leadership practices and how leadership influences organisational and instructional improvement (Spillane, 2006). Further, Harris (2008; 2010) posits that distributed leadership is crucial for system reconfiguration and organisational redesign, as it requires a flatter, lateral decision-making process. In other words, it involves many individuals.
I utilise Spillane’s (2006) distributed perspective on leadership because it helps us examine not only ‘what’ school leaders do, but ‘how’ and ‘why’ they do it (Spillane & Diamond, 2007).
Spillane’s (2006) distributed leadership model can be viewed through the lens of: the leader-plus aspect; and the leadership practice aspect.
Firstly, in the leader-plus aspect there is the acknowledgement that several people in both formal and informal positions assume school leadership roles. The belief is that multiple leaders create a richer, more holistic view of leadership (Spillane & Diamond, 2007). The leader-plus aspect is not an abdication of the authority and responsibility of the leader, but rather considers the work of “all individuals who have a hand in leadership” (Spillane & Diamond, 2007, p.7).
43
Furthermore, Spillane (2006) advocates the use of a variety of material artefacts (tools) such as test scores, technology-based tools, and curricular frameworks to coordinate and enhance the work of multiple leaders. In this study, the leader-plus aspect considers the instructional leadership practices of school principals, deputy principals, HoDs and teachers.
Secondly, the leadership practice aspect focuses on the interactions among leaders, followers, and their contexts around specific leadership tasks (Spillane & Diamond, 2007). For clarity, I will examine the three components separately. Our common conception of leadership is that it is the practices or behaviours of individual leaders. A distributed perspective asks us to view leadership as interactions between leaders and followers. The following paragraph will deal with the context component.
The interactions between individuals cannot be separated from the context. According to Spillane and Diamond (2007, p.6), practice constitutes the “actual doing of leadership in particular places and times”. This view has its roots in the distributed cognition and activity theory. The basic premise is that the social context is integral to activity and cognition (Spillane
& Diamond, 2007). Hence, context not only affects leadership but also constitutes a leadership practice. In the light of this, leadership can be empowered or inhibited by context.
The third component is the interaction between leaders and followers in specific contexts around specific tasks (Spillane & Diamond, 2007). Since my topic focuses on instructional leadership practices of school principals, the leadership tasks are related to teaching and learning. Thus, instructional leadership practices should include the relationship between instructional leadership and instruction. Lastly, the leadership practice aspect considers how the school principal, deputy principals, HoDs and teachers engage in the three aforementioned components.
Spillane’s (2006) distributed leadership theory is relevant to this study because in order to achieve school improvement, the instructional leadership practices should be spread across the staff complement of a school.